1. Wisconsin. They play smashmouth, ram-it-down-your-throat, classic Big 10 football, which I always have and always will have a soft spot for. But unlike the stereotypical "3 yards and a cloud of dust" version, Wisconsin scores a lot of points and has a lot of big plays. How do they do it? Well, first of all, the dominate at the LoS with a crew of serious maulers. Unlike the Ron Dayne days, though, they back this up with tailbacks that are as elusive as they are tough. Montee Ball is the perfect example of this: he's 5-11, 210lbs and runs a 4.46 40-yard dash. Then there's Wisconsin's underrated passing game. Tolzein completed more than 70% of his passes in 2010, which means they got the yards almost every time they tried to. This year, with Russell Wilson, they look like they've seriously leveled up in that regard, and can also use the QB as a running threat as well. As good as LSU, Alabama and Oklahoma's defenses are, I don't think anyone can stop Wisconsin when they have the ball.

2. Leach-era Texas Tech. Just look at the numbers mediocre QBs behind mediocre lines put up against legit defenses. This **** works. And, in my humble opinion, it's very elegant. At the LoS, you simply line up more targets than the defense can account for, and use misdirection, fakes and complex blocking to get guys open as quickly as possible. This might not work as well in the Big 10 as in the Big 12, given the generally higher level of defensive play beyond the elite level, but I've liked it since the first time I saw it, and hope Coach Leach finds a good new home soon.

offense is a lot different than RR's offense at Michigan. Part of it is they're used to the system and another is they have a legit RB who is a HR threat. Even though Pat White can't throw worth a lick, WVU offense continues to be dominant in running game because they give defense a lot of stress on worrying about who to defend. They also have an excellent FB in Owen Schmitt who isn't a bad athlete himself. They would use Schmitt at FB dive or White/Slaton out in the perimeter.

The Chad Henne/Braylon Edwards/Jason Avant/Steve Breaston/Mike Hart soulless killing machine, coupled with an offensive coordinator that knew more than "Run off tackle" and "short pass to the TE". The passing spread we deployed for the Gator Bowl, coupled with a punishing power run game.

I dislike the Leach's offense, as it has the potential to stall out against good teams or in very windy conditions.

Texas Tech is good as well, but you can't say that it held up against elite defenses. You may be able to beat me with stats here, but I'll go from recall and say that most years when they played in a big game they were dismantled by Oklahoma and Texas. I recall a bowl game against Ole Miss where they were smoked as well. Leach never had elite talent so I'm sure his scheme would work very well with similar talent, but I don't recall them doing much against the Big Boys when really other than Oklahoma they never really played anyone anyway.

Give me Georgia Tech with Denard at QB, Hopkins at A Back, Toussiant at B Back, Smith at C back and Hemmingway as my alley oop guy when you bring 10 in the box and I'll go to war against anyone in the country with Paul Johnson figuring out how to get Denard loose on the edge.

Of course, the overall record of 2-4 against those teams isn't good, but TTU never had great defenses under Leach so the win/loss isn't just on the offense. Allowing 59 and 65 is pretty terrible for a team with a winning record.

But ideally, you'd have a guy more like Devin at QB, and maybe have Denard at one of the WB positions. Only because the QB probably takes more hits in that offense than anyone else or even the one we currently run. Man, when that offense is humming though, it's tough to stop.

Why does it matter if it is "aesthetically pleasing"? They get the job done, and done better than most. Part of me longs for the old Michigan football that beat the crap out of every opponent just because they were bigger and stronger, and executed better. That's part of the mystique that we used to have. It was intimidating that we could force our will on opponents, rather than have to pull off all this fancy stuff so we can get by them.

By no means am I saying we have to run off the left tackle every play. I just want to be bigger and better than everyone else.

I think everyone would agree that the first priority is having an offense that is best-suited to winning games in the BIG. But if we're talking about our "ideal," dreamworld offense, then I think it should not only dominate opponents but also rack up the style points.

Well, I took the question to mean what sort of offense would you want Michigan to field.

For a random, neutral team I too would much rather watch an Oregon/WVU type offense, but victory for Michigan would be much sweeter if it came in the form of soul-crushing dominance. Spread offenses might be plenty scary, but I've never seen one make an opposing team's fans wish the game ended early.

Edit: My ideal offense would be a ground-spread like RR's last year, only with more triple option and less Denard throwing. I would literally cringe and close my eyes when he threw the ball in big games last year, because I could somehow just sense an interception coming. The rest of the time I was giggling like a little girl at the annihilation.

If I were an Iowa fan I'd hate football, even during seasons where they went to the Rose Bowl. Watching Kirk Ferentz run off tackle and punt from the opponent's 30 would rob me of my will to live.

Wouldn't you rather have been a fan of Texas Tech during the Dread Pirate Leach days than Iowa, even if Iowa was winning more games? I feel like at some point how you're doing it has to matter as well.

Assuming I was born an Iowa fan? I might not like every off tackle blast, but I sure as hell would be an Iowa fan.

I feel for you, because if Michigan gets really, really good, their offense if going to become really, really boring. When great teams don't have to have much variety in playcalling, they tend not to have much variety.

It really weirds me out when people say they'd prefer a certain style over wins. I just can't imagine preferring a loss because the team might bring in some offensive genius if things didn't go well.

We're never going to agree here. Winning ugly rocks next to losing pretty.

I get the "living and dying as a fan" thing. I pretty much went to the University of Michigan because of their football team (much to my parents' horror). But that mindset only really makes sense to me if watching the team is enjoyable. Otherwise it's just masochism. I can't imagine being a Penn State fan or an Iowa fan and having to root for my team in a 6-4 game. I mean, can anyone really say "well, we almost lost to Ball State, and it was an excruciating experience, but we ended up winning, so that's all that matters"?

At the end of the day, sports are about entertainment. And yeah, winning a big game is almost always entertaining no matter the score (the Michigan-Wisconsin game with David Terrell was not fun to watch, but we beat a good Wisconsin team so it was fun). But there's something not that enjoyable about watching a team slowly exert physical superiority en route to a convincing but not exciting victory over a mediocre opponent. As someone who prefers great offense to great defense, I'd rather watch a team air raid or spread and shred its way to a less convincing win.

But I'm probably the only Michigan fan in the audience for the 2007 Oregon game who wasn't all that angry at what was happening because, holy shit, Oregon's offense that day was the coolest thing ever, so I'm not sure I can give you any insight into fans as a whole.

I'm with you AAB. Not on the Oregon part, beacuse that was there and it was awful, but I agree that a big part of the fun is having a team that's fun to watch, which is why I think I enjoyed the last three years just as much as some of the late-Carr years.

Is how did you get to the point that you would choose a college for it's football team that you didn't find entertaining until the last 3 years, well after you became a fan. Because for all our lives we've been a lot closer to the teams you hate rather than the one's you love.

Their coaches have said they "don't have an offense, [they] just run plays." As I interpret it, that means they just pick and choose things from various offensive systems to fit their personnel and to exploit matchups presented by specific opponents.

It's kind of the opposite of the Lombardi-esque base & constraint approach, whereby you master a particilar way of moving the ball and then develop constraint plays to punish the defense for cheating to stop it. But you can't argue with the results.

A spread offense with a quarterback who can run and not a running back that can throw. So basically Oregon's offense. If you listened to Brian Kelly on Gameday he specifically said they want a QB who can run (Dennis Dixon is playing in the NFL as a QB for example).

Growing up a Michigan fan I have memories (nightmares) of Donovan McNabb, Vince Young, Troy Smith escaping would be sacks and getting first downs. I always wanted someone like that and thought RichRod would make that happend. Denard is great but he is more a runner who can throw vs. a thrower who can run.

A Michigan example would to be imagine our offense against Florida but add in a few zone reads by our QB.

What an incredibly simplistic, and inaccurate, way of looking at things. The offense and the defense are largely (not entirely) independant of each other. Would you call an offense that averages 3 points per game that happens to accompany a defense that never allows a point the best offense ever?

The fact that we almost never have a defense as good as the '97 defense is the reason you need a good offense. The whole problem with Lloydball is that it played like we had an awesome defense, and frequently, we didn't.

If you can point to some data that certain systems lead to hugely better/worse defenses (independant of pace), I'd love to see that. As for calling my example an effective offense, I think you're crazy. It's an extremely ineffective offense coupled with a phenomenally effective defense, which leads to wins. It gets results, but that has nothing to do with the offense being good. Was our offense last year a terrible offense because we gave up 30 some PPG on defense?

Okay, we simply disagree on the extent to which they're related. I think if you put the '97 offense on last year's team, they don't make it to 7 wins. That defense was awful no matter how far the opposing offense had to go. Likewise, I think the 2010 offense coupled with the '97 defesne would have been by far the best Michigan team of the last 50 years.

I just don't see how the offense in the Illinois game last year was possibly putting the defense in a bad position. By scoring touchdown after touchdown, you put the defense in a bad position? I agree with you that three and outs make it harder for the defense, but I guarantee you that the '97 offense had way more three and outs than the '10 offense, and way fewer first downs. That's part of the reason the '97 offense wasn't as good as the '10 variety.

This conversation is ridiculous. The offense's job is to score points. The defense's job is to stop the other team from scoring. I have said this numerous times: if the defense wants to get rest, they should force a 3 and out every time they are on the field.

Butterfield, I get what you're saying, and I like the debate everyone is having here. I, too, used to think along similar lines. However, in the past 5 years or so, I've changed my thinking because there isn't data to support the idea that time of possession impacts defensive performance in the manner you're alluding to. This is a debate that's been had over and over again over the past few years. To me, it does seem that there should be some corellation, just from a common sense standpoint, but so far (and I've looked), I've never seen a data set that indicates that there is actually a corellation. In fact (and I'm too lazy to look up now), I'm fairly certain that there's a lot of data suggesting the converse is true; that while field position matters, TOP does not affect defensive performance in any significant way. It's kind of a "Moneyball" sort of thing, where what was once long-accepted has been shown upon closer examination to be false.

It doesn't say that ToP doesn't impact defensive performance, it says that it doesn't generally (as in almost always) do so.

I don't think Oregon's or Auburn's defenses in 2010 played worse because of their quick offenses. But those teams had talent, and more importantly, depth. When you can substitute quality players in at every position for your starters, you're good to go. Given that the defense has depth, it makes sense to have your productive offense out there as much as possible.

But a team with one of the worst defenses in the country, and without depth? Different case there. Our defense wasn't just bad, it was an injury factory as well. Doesn't more time on the field mean more chances for injuries? And if you lack depth, doesn't a higher chance of injuries also mean a higher chance of injuries to desperately needed players who don't have able substitutes ready to come in for them?

Time of Possession is a tactic, not a rule. Sometimes it's functional; sometimes it's not.

I was waiting for you to drop the "Offense scores too quickly" line. it was inevitable. That invalidates your opinion in my eyes immediately. Which is too bad, because I agree, in principal that an offense's success inevitably will be measured against the success (or lackthereof) of the defense.

But to actually suggest that it's a bad thing to score on quick strikes is ludicrous, and makes me quite happy you're not in charge or anywhere near in charge. If you can score every play, that's a good thing. . .

Would you prefer that Denard pulls a peyton manning and slides down in the open field, just so the offense can run more plays? you do realize how ridiculous that is, right?

Depends on your personnel. There are some teams, like Oregon's, that are built for this. Oregon's defensive recruiting strategy centers on getting larger numbers of solid, athletic defenders, rather than smaller numbers of dominating starters. They substitute constantly, which mitigates tiredness. The idea is that they know their offense will score quickly (or give up the ball quickly), so they went out and got the personnel to compliment that on the other side of the ball.

Other defenses are not built like this. Michigan's defense in 2010 (and 2011) is the perfect example. We don't have much depth at all, so tiredness really actually is an issue.

I think the spread to run systems are all pretty amazing for their efficiency and versatility. Rich Rod's spread (especially if he could have gotten someone like Denard to get the ZR down pat), Oregon's system, Urban Meyer's offense with Tebow at Florida. All of those teams were great at putting the dynamic players in the open field and punishing teams for trying to contain said dynamos.

As an addendum, any offense is better when it is run as a hurry-up. The idea of controlling the clock and all that is ridiculous. You want to score quickly and play every down as quickly as possible so as to maximize your offensive possessions and thus, scoring oppurtunities. Teams like Oklahoma and Oregon that get off 80+ snaps per game are just beautiful, and crush a defense FAR more than big, burly linemen and 30 second breaks between snaps ever could.

I would have an offense based off of a lot of option plays. From shotgun and pistol, I'd mix up Read Option, Veers, Inverted Veers, etc. on different linemen so they couldn't cheat on it. I'd also throw in some speed option. I'd use Pistol, I Form, and Wishbone to do Triple options.

Passing would look like a passing spread with some WCO concepts mixed in. Particularly, pre-snap reads to determine WR routes. It might even be that a play call is actually 2-3 plays and the defense determines which to run.

The RB would be a Brandon Minor type where if he would consistently use the lower numbers in the box to break a tackle and run for another 30 yards. My QB doesn't need to be a burner, but needs to be mobile. It's more important that he can throw accurately, can make good reads, and does really good fake handoffs for the options and PA. I'd have some utility-type players that can play multiple positions, e.g. TEs that can play receiver, HB, and occasionally FB as well.

There would be no-huddle with lots of pre-snap motion, a lot of times moving utility players around to completely change formations. Maybe we start out in Wishbone and then motion to 3WR shotgun or 3TE I Form.

Honestly, there would probably be alot in the playbook to know, but I like to have a reasoning for everything so that I can figure out why we do things a certain way. I would expect that same thing in all of the players. You'd have to have mostly upperclassmen, but younger players could work their way in by learning a package of plays well, then moving onto the next package.

Yep, that's why you need upperclassmen to run it. A lot of the options are very similar. It's all based on zone blocking. So, it's not impossible to practice a lot of the concepts over and over again with different plays actually being run.

Surprised to not see much mention of the offense Dana Holgorsen put together at Oklahoma State (he's working on implementing it at WVU now). It's similar to the Mike Leach style Airraid, although it's got its unique aspects. It's awfully hard to stop.

I want 10 Jake Long's on the field, and one Denard. We would only attempt ~5 passes a game because I don't know about Jake Long's hands yet, but can you imagine the downfield blocking?! Jake Long would be pancaking everybody. I imagine Denard would average 600yrds rushing/game, with a 30 yards/rush average.

My question was really not Michigan-specific. It was just to get an idea of what Brian's favorite offense is, and why.

As for me, I like Gus Malzahn's offense. A physical spread that seems quite easy and quick to install, uses a considerable amount of deception and is made extremely dangerous with a great athlete at QB. Of course, Auburn's roster has not been short on NFL talent in the last few years, but still.

I love Oregon's offense too...although when it's not clicking, it can be really ugly. I guess I just have bad memories of '08-present Michigan looking completely undersized and manhandled when running a little fella into an unblocked defensive line.

My sentiments exactly...it's a thing of beauty when firing on all cylinders, but kind of awful when they play someone who knows how to scheme for it.

Actually, that's a general thing about speed-based spread-option offenses. The power-based ones are more functional against top defenses, I think (see: Tebow-era Florida, Auburn 2010, etc.), but they're also not as pretty or fun to watch.

I agree with BILG: the specific scheme doesn't matter that much to me. If you have coaches who know the scheme well, believe in it, can teach it, and the players with the physical and mental capability of running it well there will be success on the field. The hard part is getting all that together. A couple key players can make the difference between an offense scoring 21 points per game and one scoring in the 30s or 40s.

Btw, I live in Oklahoma now, and the local fans are critical of Oklahoma for their red zone scoring. They are especially poor at picking up 3rd and one or two yards. I do think even the best offenses often have at least one area of weakness. Also, in the Bob Stoops era at OU, it was Mike Leach who began as the OC. Stoops previously was DC at Florida and said he wanted Leach because his Kentucky offense was the most difficult team to prepare for at the time.

Give me Wisconsin's offense this year with Russell Wilson at the helm. They can maul you up front and hand off to two great RB's in Monte Ball and James White, and then they can turn around and toss it deep to a great receiver in Nick Toon (when healthy) or run play action to a great tight end in Jacob Pederson (U.P. native).

The Nebraska offense from 1994 and 1995. I really love offensive line play and Nebraska's at that time was brutal, yet elegant. It didn't work very well if they got behind, but they didn't really have that problem those years. By the way, it's very, very different than what Paul Johnson is running at Georgia Tech.

There also is a significant advantage to doing something different than everyone else. When Nebraska gave up the option, they were just about the only team running it in NCAA football, so as long as they could find a kid who could make the reads, execute the pitches, and move alright, it was really difficult to stop them.

Two offenses really stick out to me currently. While not a fan of the coaches (personalities), I am a fan of their offenses.

Chip Kelly's Oregon Ducks: Up-tempo offense that stresses the defense with time and speed. The defense needs to be quick to react, which is hard when this offense gets quicker players. Simple for the most part, not overly complex, but packs a punch with misdirection. This team gets style points for sure.

2011 Wisconsin Badgers: A couple of different teams could have filled this slot actually (Alabama, LSU), but this year's offense for the Badgers is a masterpiece in my opinion. While these types of teams always have solid, tough running backs and continuously get 5 yards a carry behind a strong offensive line, this Wisconsin team has a touch more with Russell Wilson. A quarterback like this adds another dimension to their game, giving a mobile but extremely accurate quarterback all the time in the world to pick apart your defense who is stacking the box in hope to slowing down the mistake-free rushing attack. These teams rely on being mistake free and turnovers could be potentially costly as their team isn't a quick strike team, but this old-fashioned, bruising, ground game is something to fear.

Overall, Oregon's got the flashyness and style but I think Hoke does have a point with defenses constantly seeing a spread team in practice over a tough-nosed offense. On the flip side, the defense will always be conditioned and will rarely get tired. Wisconsin (or Alabama/LSU) have a consistent attack that is going to be tough to beat. Pair this up with a tough-as-nails defense and it's tough to beat an old school rushing attack.

The best offenses are balanced enough to punish a defense that sells out to take one thing away. If they take away the run can you pass and vice versa? Can you use the run to set up the pass and vice versa? Can you play ball control if the game is tight, the weather is bad or your defense needs a blow? Can you score points quickly if it turns into a shootout?

As good as Oregon can look I'm a firm believer that you have to be able to pound teams if necessary. They haven't fared too well against fast, athletic defenses. If the defense is fast enough to minimize their strategy of putting defenders alone in space, they don't have another way to beat you.

Ugliest offenses to me are Iowa, Wisconsin, MSU, and the old style UofM. Neg away, I've just grown bored of telegraphing off tackle and relying on better players. I want an offense that has plays that compliment one another, are exciting and unique.

My ideal offense as people have said, is the oregon offense, as Brian noted with its variability.

But I do enjoy watching the stanford offense. Even though it seems that all of their skilled positions are seemingly Tight Ends and Full Backs they are able to create variability with their mutliple formations and pre-snap shifts and motions (even the linemen shift to wideouts at times). So they can line up in the Maryland-I then shift and spread you out to five-wide and then shift back. So to me it seems like a Manball meets Spread fusion.

I think this year's Wisky offense looks like an ideal college football offense. Brick of an offensive line; a big back in Ball and a smaller shifty back in White; decent crop of WRs; and a QB who can beat you with his legs. Those are all of the elements you need for a potent offense.

It's weird because they're pretty different...Pro Style vs. Air Raid. But I like the smashmouth, using TEs and FBs of Stanford, but I like the flexibility it also has, they'll spread you out. I like the controlled passing game of Oklahoma.

If I could have my own personnel...I'd take a passing QB who can run. Ala Andrew Luck, Steve Young. Accuracy would be a premium, but you have to be able to move the chains with your legs if need be.

All these people espousing the "spread & shred" (which shouldnt surprise me around here, since many love it seemingly more than the team itself) are just killing me.

What is the highest level football is played at?? NFL

Where is the best football talent in the world playing? NFL

Where do they not even bother to attempt something as gimmicky and unpredictable as the spread n shred offense of RR, Chip Kelly & the like?? The NFL

Why do you think that is?? For me its obvious. Risk vs. Reward. Its just to damn unpredictable, which makes it work vs. weaker defenses but get stuffed by elite athletes on D and when this happens its cost are too high. Slow developing runs that rely on starting 5yds behind the LOS and reading a D-end get whomped for big losses when serious speed is available on the edges. Hell in the NFL the backside pursuit alone from the likes of Ray Lewis would relegate them to 3rd and 18 on far to regular a basis.

People, here and elsewhere have co-opted many offensive formations and plays that exsisted LONG before Rich Rod was even a head coach and assigned them as staples of spread & shred, this is just dishonest. In the same way that equivocating what Auburn did last year to a RR spread. Look at the stats for QB rushing attempts. Thats a stat in college football that RR absolutely owns. I liken his offense to the Delaware wing-t in that respect. A classic and effective offense run by hundreds of high schools and a bunch of lower level colleges where you get the most out of lesser talent through reads & misdirection. Granted the wing-t does not spread the field horizontally but rather uses fakes & defensive overpursuit to open running lanes.

Against top level competition, I'll pass on the spread for a more consistant system. Once in a while a special athlete(Cam Newton, Tim Tebow) in a similar but not identical system can win it all but until its produced more than a couple NC's in a decade I'll take Carrolls USC offense or Saban's Alabama. The gross numbers say they win more.

Of course I"m a defense first guy who played D so for me it all starts there anyhow.

Obviously NFL offenses are superior to college offenses. But college teams have a lot less practice time to work with. The Bill Walsh West Coast system might be the best offensive scheme ever devised--but try teaching that scheme to a group of college kids and practicing it with all the different option routes and post-snap reads, and you'll never be able to run it at the level of an NFL team. Spread offenses give you a lot of the same advantages (i.e., isolating skill players in favorable one-one-one matchups against the defense) but are much simpler to install and run, and thus more practical at the high school and college levels.

1. Speed. NFL linebackers and other defensive personnel are much faster and less prone to whiffing on a fake than their college counterparts. A lot of stuff that works in college doesn't work in the pros, and it goes back a long way. Ever see option plays in the NFL? Maybe once in a while, but this staple of the college game never made it in the pros because the defenses were too good and sniffing it out and didn't miss the tackles. The spread option suffers from the same problems.

2. Personnel. NFL rosters are limited to 53, whereas college rosters go over 100. Not only that, free agency means a large percentage of that 53 needs to be replaced every year from a limited pool of experienced players. It's too difficult to get the right personnel in for a system that needs drastically different personnel, given those circumstances.

In college, #2 isn't a factor, and #1 is only one when facing elite defenses. Even then, it's conceivable that a spread-option team overcomes these problems with other strengths. But what about when EVERY defense is an elite defense? This is why it doesn't fly in the NFL.

suits me just fine. They run with power, they can throw the deep ball and they can run wide as well. With Wilson at QB, Wisconsin may be as close to perfect as they can get.

You have to have a QB that is mobile, but can throw with accuracy and a quick yet powerful running game. And you top it off with fast WRs that can create separation. What's not to like. The only thing wrong are the unis. They should be wearing maize and blue with winged helmets.

In my dream world I'd love an old Bo offense where you grind people under your cleats and punish them and enjoy doing it and passing is for wussies. But that won't really work nowadays.

For effectiveness over a long period of time, I'd go with the multiple offense style LSU runs. They can do it all, and well. Miles gets called crazy, but doesn't get enough coaching credit (or enough disdain for the shady stuff).

So maybe some middle ground? I haven't seen enough of them to be sure, but I loved what I was seeing from Stanford last year. NFL QB, could grind people into the turf, but creative and mixing it up.

Michigan-wise the most unstoppable Michigan offense I've ever seen is the 4 wides run by Brady in '99. The only way to stop it was snap it over Brady's head, or pull him out of the game.

But as I've said, I'd still rather see the Bears '85 defense with the Sterl Curtain and the Purple People Eaters led by Butkus. You know...the '97 defense.

The 2003 or for that matter the 2006 offense with someone with the mobility of the Devin Gardner as opposed to a John Navarre or Chad Henne. Those sacks versus USC in the Rose Bowls were the only things that made me question what we ran.

Here's one for you: take some of the Air-Raid stuff and mix in a little (I'm sorry for this, in advance) of what OSU did in '06 with the 4 wide, singleback (Wells, Pittman) look, and you've got a potent offense that stretches the field horizontally, vertically, and adds that slashing bruising Running back up the gut. -type stuff.

I guess, in summation, that's largely what Oklahoma's done for the last decade, so, uh, that!

have been pulling off some fun things with their vertical passing game out of the spread option set.

I agree too that Texas Tech was a lot of fun to watch.

NFLesque offenses (proset/I-formation) are not much fun to watch in my eyes, and part of the reason I favor college football over NFL in the first place.

Statuesque quarterbacks, QB waggles (dude, you're Tony Pike, 6-6 and 233 lbs, you'll be cut down before you ever make it to the outside hash!), the droning, predictable run-run-pass-punt playcalling progressions, and sissy-sliding quarterback. Man, it just doesn't appeal to me.

I prefer offenses in football where the quarterback shows real cajones, is good at scrambling, runs the football, dives for first downs and touchdowns, and throws a wicked block or two to blindside LBs on a double reverse.

That's fun to watch.

If you ever watch a college game played by Washington's Warren Moon, Nebraska's Turner Gill, Oregon's Dennis Dixon or Michigan's Rick Leach, you'll understand what I mean.

I agree with an above poster: Oregon, Rich Rod's or something similar to Auburn last year. Combine that with a "Michigan Defense" and you will have an unstoppable machine that will be in the hunt for a national championship every year. I wish we could have at least seen what RR could have done with elite talent and a decent DC.

Spread n Shred slanted more towards the run and blindingly fast no huddle. I use a variation of Oregon's offense on NCAA 12, and can usually put up a ton of points against my opponents. In real life I think it works pretty well too though...